Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Pluto]

G'day Enorbet2

 

Why support any theory?

 

Why not understand the working parts that make up the universe?

 

In so doing you will support any theory with some understanding.

 

Support by science and not by "here say".

 

One of the Keys to the workings is found in:

 

Magnetic reconnection

Magnetic Reconnection 2009

arXiv.org Search

 

You can alter the search via the sort by date or no date at all.

 

A dead log can float down mainstrem, but! it takes effort to swim upstream.

 

 

I have read many of the papers above and yet there is missing information, it will take time to fill in the parts. Maybe on completion of reading all the papers I may begin to understand. Xmas is soon enough.

 

==========================

 

But! I'm interested to know what you think, what science supports the BBT.

[coldcreation]

...the red shift phenomenon. In this area I can find no explanation of how his idea that red shift, rather than being a doppler phenomenon, is caused by a filtering effect through the sharmon medium can possibly account for increasing red shift, the basis of the concept of Dark Energy.

 

There actually are several alternative interpretations for redshift z.

 

You can find, if you are (or anyone else is) interested, potentially viable (related) solutions at the following links:

 

Here is a heated discussion of the topic (z) right here at Hypography: Redshift z

 

There are only two possible interpretations for cosmological redshift z that show wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum.

 

(1) A change in the scale factor to the metric (often called Doppler effect, implying the expansion of space and the recession of objects in it, i.e., the radius of the universe changes with time t).

 

(2) The general relativistic curved spacetime interpretation (implying a stationary yet dynamic and evolving universe).

 

 

TOPOLOGICAL WAVELENGTH SHIFTS [ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD IN LOBACHEVSKIAN GEOMETRY, by J. G. von Brzeski and V. von Brzeski, Helios Labs

 

CONCLUSIONS AND REMARKS

 

On the basis of a 3 dimensional real Lobachevskian geometry' date=' we presented a geometrical analysis from which cosmological red-shift and related phenomena follow in natural way. The presented equations give correct numerical values for their respective physical quantities. The new equations (15) and (16) which relate red-shift to aberration may be useful in astronomical observations.

 

Our presentation of the Lobachevskian-Hubble cosmological red-shift (eq. (5)), the Lobachevskian-Doppler effect (eq. (7)), and aberration was done in rigorous way on a purely geometrical basis of Lobachevskian 3 dimensional real geometry with all entities clearly defined...

 

Instead ,we offer an alternative solution based on simple Lobachevskian geometry. We believe that looking at experimental data and equation (5), a much simpler solution (minimum complexity solution) is to admit that the space between distant sources and our spectrographs is negatively curved, i.e. it is a Lobachevskian 3 dimensional space causing the recorded shifts. In other words, what we see through our telescopes is the fundamental formula of Lobachevskian geometry : equation (3). Experiments confirm our model.[/quote']

 

 

 

And from the same author: Big Bang as a Fatal Mistake of Edwin Hubble. Cosmological Red-shift and Related Electromagnetic Phenomena in Static Lobachevskian (Hyperbolic) Universe.

 

Abstract—It is shown that in hyperbolic spaces' date=' an electromagnetic radiation experiences shifts in spectrum as a function of curvature and distance. The equation relating distance in hyperbolic space, its curvature, and spectral shift is derived by method of horospheres. The active nature of the Lobachevskian vacuum is discussed with applications to physics.[/quote']

 

 

 

1) The only speculative portions of BBT, which are by no means essential to the whole, are inflation and baryogenesis.

 

I would add cold dark nonbaryonic matter (CDM) and dark energy (DE) to the list of speculatives. It seems too that some form of inflation is essential to the whole, contrary to what you write above.

 

 

2) All of the arguments regarding oldness/flatness, horizon, 1a supernovae, abundance of primordial elements, etc have all been well explained by BBT and until and unless some new compelling evidence to the contrary is observed BBT, and the Standard Model, is safe.

 

Here is page 1 of an interesting link (courtesy of Hilton Ratcliffe): Second Crisis in Cosmology Conference (CCC2), The Alternative Cosmology Group (ACG) within which many of the queries important in determining a viable cosmology are discussed.

 

Be sure to navigate through the list at the bottom of the page in the above link (panels 1-8):

 

Author Index

Panel 1 - Reality of Cosmic Expansion

Panel 2 - Origin of Microwave Radiation

Panel 3 - Quasi-Stellar Objects

Panel 4 - Large Scale Structure

Panel 5 - Methods for Selecting Alternative Cosmologies

Panel 6 - General Alternative Cosmologies

Panel 7 - Hubble Relationship Alternatives

Panel 8 - Dark Matter and Dark Energy Alternatives

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day Coldcreation

 

The link

 

CCC2

 

I have read all the papers:

 

It is quite a powerful link.

 

But! till this date I cannot understand how the Big Bang Theory became the standard model.

 

Not only that people who think along the lines of the BBT find it offensive that anybody should think differently.

 

It must be Human Nature.

[freeztar]

But! till this date I cannot understand how the Big Bang Theory became the standard model.

It is the standard model because no other theory explains the universe as well. If another theory comes along that does a better job of explaining the universe, it will become the standard model.

 

In other words, it is not good enough to say that BBT incorrectly interprets redshift, for example. Another theory must be invoked that does a better job of interpreting redshift than the BBT. When the new theory can reconcile this with all other aspects of BBT in such a way that it makes BBT inferior, a new model of the universe will take the place of BBT.

[retrochick]

I feel that these ideas are explaining what they are. They are theories. People are hypothesizing what could have happened. I could have a theory on earth's existence by the hands of fairies that used magic sand and tears to create this world. Doesn't seem plausible but there is no proof that it did not happen. Noone is alive who witnessed it. The burden of proof

[retrochick]

All of these theories are just that, theories. I could postulate that fairies created this world by mixing magical sand with their tears to make this universe. Noone could say it didn't happen because noone was there when it happened. Even though this idea is not plausible it cannot be totally disproved. The only thing that would weigh on my shoulders is the burden of proof to try to sway you guys to believe me. (which I believe I could due to my gift of gab.)

[freeztar]

All of these theories are just that, theories.

 

This is not true with respect to the scientific definition of the word theory.

 

In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[3]. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet but we invoke theories of gravity to explain this occurrence. However, even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context. In casual speech scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion, allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else. For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called "the theory of relativity" while Newton's theory of gravity often is called "the law of gravity." In this kind of casual use by scientists the word theory can be used flexibly to refer to whatever kind of explanation or prediction is being examined. It is for this instance that a scientific theory is a claim based on a body of evidence.

 

In other words, my "theory" that unicorns continually create the universe is not a scientific theory. In science, it works the other way. If we saw unicorns flying around and creating stuff, then it would be a scientific theory if the theory attempted to explain how unicorns create stuff.

 

The Big Bang Theory is a direct result of observations that confirm it.

It has predicted new observations to a very high level of accuracy. This is what makes it such a strong theory!

[CraigD]

It appears to me that many proponents of a “eternal recycling universe” model believe that there exists a kind nucleosynthesis that reverses the stellar and similar nucleosynthesis processes, transmuting iron and lighter elements into hydrogen and helium. However, I can recall reading no theory or observational data in any credible literature, including the hundreds of papers referenced by Pluto in this thread, suggesting how such a process might be possible, or that it is occurring.

You must not have read all of them.

Pluto is correct. I have not read every paper about nucleosynthesis, nor even all of the hundreds he has linked to in this thread. Further, I won’t read most of these papers, as, without many years of education, I wouldn’t be able to understand most of them in the detail their authors assume of a reader. Reading detailed information one doesn’t understand is not, I think, effective use of ones time.

 

Pluto, if you are aware of any credible literature contradicting my characterization of the universe over the next [math]10^{14}[/math] years as “a ‘giant iron factory’ that will eventually transmute a universe consisting mostly of hydrogen to one consisting mostly of iron, in which stars will no longer be possible”, please post it, quoting the appropriate sections of the reference.

 

Note that supporting a claim with a link to a reference that either makes not reference to the claim, or contradicts it, is improper. Providing links to tens or hundreds of such references is worse. It disingenuous, and a waste of the readers time. :naughty:

The process involving the property of double layer plasma, Z-pinch during the magnetic entanlement of EM/gravitatonal waves changes normal matter to subatomic particles such a Neutrons.

I believe Pluto badly confuses terms in this sentence.

 

“Z-pinch” normally refers to a specific kind of machine that compresses a plasma – ordinary matter in which electrons are no longer confined around their nuclei – to very high temperatures and pressures, in some cases sufficient to fuse light elements such as hydrogen-1, 2, and 3 and helium-4 into heavier ones such as lithium-7. It is not a process associated with stellar or supernova fusion, nor are any of these processes fission processes, which produce lighter elements from heavier

 

“Entanglement” normally refers to quantum entanglement, phenomina in which 2 particles are produces such that determining a property of one, such as its polarity, determines the property in the other, regardless of the distance separating them. It’s not a term normally used to describe z-pinches.

 

Gravitational waves are hypothesized fluctuations in the curved spacetime described by general relativity. Their existence has only been observed indirectly, as an explanation for the motion of astronomical bodies, such as the decrease in rotation of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar. It is a very weak effect that thus far has not been detectable using Earth or near-Earth instruments, and plays no role in z-pinch.

 

“changing normal matter to subatomic particles such a neutrons” doesn’t make sense, because subatomic particles such as neutrons are normal matter.

It also has the ability to compact such Neutrons if the zone is able to keep them in a stable matrix, such as the core of the Sun and Neutron stars. When this occurs close to or on the surface the Neutrons change back to protons.

This claim needs to be backed up with links and references.

 

Conventional theory explains the compaction of normal matter into degenerate matter in neutron stars as being due to gravity, not magnetic force. The core of the Sun is not believed to contain degenerate matter.

There are other processes that are general info. … Such as … Photodisintegration

Photodisintegration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

One of the main triggers of a supernova is the photodisintegration of Fe and similar elements to He than H than Protons than Neutrons that collect at the core forming the Neutron core matrix. This process is well documented.

Photodisintegration does produce light elements, such as hydrogen, from heavier ones. However, it occurs much less frequently than other nucleosynthesis, as best I can tell mostly during the collapse of large stars in supernova events, and is an energy-absorbing reaction that gets its energy from photons produced by fusion. Thus, it can’t explain the large-scale transmutation of heavy elements into hydrogen required by an “endlessly recycling universe” model

 

The role of photodisintegration in supernovas is to reduce the outward pressure of photons that resist the collapse of the star due to gravity, resulting in the supernova happening faster, and to allow the formation of heavy elements such as platinum-190 that can’t be produced by more common fusion processes such as the s, r, and rp-processes via the p-process.

 

Pluto, I believe you’re doing the sensible thing that someone attempting to support the idea of an eternally recycling universe should do: searching for a physical process that can explain how the tremendous amount of hydrogen fused into successively heavier elements in stars can be fissioned, or “unfused”, back into hydrogen. However, there are IMHO at least a few major problems with this idea that make such a search premature and unproductive. I recall they’ve been discussed in this and other threads, but will summarize them here:

• Where’s the hydrogen? Concentrations of hydrogen absorb light to produce a distinct spectral lines. If collapsars were producing quantities of hydrogen nearly as great as what existed in their protostellar clouds, we should see it in their spectra, but don’t.
  
• Where’re the short-lived low metalicity stars? If iron is being recycled into hydrogen, such stars should be nearby, but we only observe them at great distances corresponding to nearly the age of the universe according to Big Bang theory.
  
• Where’s the energy? Transmuting iron into hydrogen requires at as much energy as is produced by transmuting hydrogen into iron, plus the energy lost from the system (eg: starlight) So, for such a cycle to continue forever, an inexhaustible supply of outside energy is needed. We know of no such supply of energy.
  

Because the first two problems arise from reliable observations, most perpetual universe theories focus on the third problem. Cyclic models such as brane theory have the energy coming from other universe and/or hidden dimensions, while steady state theories such as Holye, Gold, and Bondi’s (which aren’t, I think, perpetual universe theories in the sense Pluto means) have it coming in the form of matter being created very small densities scattered throughout the universe.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 

Hello CraigD

 

Thank you CraigD for your time.

 

You explained it quite well, in years gone by I would say yes to the Standard explanation you gave so that I could have a nice weekend.

 

But! Since I am me. I disagree with what you wrote.

 

I have to respond by the week end.

 

AS Arnold would say:

 

"I'll be back"

 

For now I have to take the kids out and smell the roses.

[coldcreation]

It is the standard model because no other theory explains the universe as well. If another theory comes along that does a better job of explaining the universe, it will become the standard model.

 

True, and this is exactly what happened after 1998, in light of the SNe Ia data, which showed that neither of the three Friedmann models (the pre-1998 standard model) could be validated, i.e., the predictions made by the three possible scenarios became obsolete. Thus the standard big bang theory was replaced by the concordance model, lambda CDM (LCDM).

 

Though it may be argued that LCDM is only a slight modification of the original standard model, it can be argued too that despite perfuse fudging and forswearing that has ensued, the apparition of a grotesque dark force and some unknown form of matter (cold, dark and nonbaryonic) in a standard model already riddled with peculiarities (e.g., the flatness problem, the horizon problem...) seems risible if not appalling.

 

 

In other words, it is not good enough to say that BBT incorrectly interprets redshift, for example. Another theory must be invoked that does a better job of interpreting redshift than the BBT. When the new theory can reconcile this with all other aspects of BBT in such a way that it makes BBT inferior, a new model of the universe will take the place of BBT.

 

Recall that it was the observation of both light curve (or rise time) and redshift of the SNe Ia that initiated the new standard model (LCDM). The only way to reconcile the original BBT and the post-1998 SNe Ia data was to postulate accelerated expansion and profuse (96% of the mass-enery density of the cosmos) quantities of speculative bunk.

 

 

Before 1998, lambda to science was like the condom to the Church, despised. Once it was realized that the cosmological constant could save the canonical hot big bang it was removed from the closet, placed on a throbbing member and thrust full-throttle into a new Friedmann model, though she, like Cinderella, had yet to reveal her name. It was a fourth sister, possibly the ugliest of all, repulsive like Aleksander Friedmann had never imagined.

 

Indeed, LCDM did a better job of explaining the SNe Ia observations, but not without a price. Today, we have what appears to be another reservoir of immense energy with a most fantastic property: it is created out of nothing and rules the entire universe with incremental steps.

 

Faced with two basic options⎯to shape lambda as a non-symmetric counterweight to gravity’s attractive force, whose repulsiveness dominates at great distances, or restore the old constant designed to stabilize the universe against gravitational collapse⎯cosmologists have chosen instability.

 

 

That is, in my opinion, exactly how it is not.

 

 

If everyone is avoiding disagreement in order to save the old big bang model, neither physicists from Cambridge England nor Cambridge Massachusetts are joining forces out of some resurrection of the old equilibrated romance between gravity and lambda.

 

The mood, at least in the United States, is quintessentially pragmatic, emerging more out of self-preservation than a sentimental attachment to the cosmological constant as a kind of first principle.

 

True too, both redshift and light curves from distant supernovae were raising the peculiar specter that Einstein’s constant (pre-1998 often referred to a Einstein's greatest blunder) was real. The observations had then to be interpreted in such a way that they would not viscerally oppose the finely-tuned expansion (with or without inflation).

 

The possibility that the new greatest blunder (like Einstein's on crack) might revive some of the anti-big-bang rhetoric of the early 50s loomed. In another way, confronted with choice of reintroducing the fudge factor or sacking eight decades of theoretical cosmology, physicists had to scramble fast; and scramble fast they did. It seemed the only way out was to change the standard model.

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

That was a mouth full.

 

No time to stay

 

Its sleep time.

 

Thought I'd read myself to sleep.

[freeztar]

True, and this is exactly what happened after 1998, in light of the SNe Ia data, which showed that neither of the three Friedmann models (the pre-1998 standard model) could be validated, i.e., the predictions made by the three possible scenarios became obsolete. Thus the standard big bang theory was replaced by the concordance model, lambda CDM (LCDM).

 

Science changes constantly. I see your point and raise you one...:(

[coldcreation]

The Big Bang Theory is a direct result of observations that confirm it.

It has predicted new observations to a very high level of accuracy. This is what makes it such a strong theory!

 

Correction: The big bang was an idea first. Observations appeared to support it afterwards (not the other way around). I. Kant, E. A. Poe, I. Newton, A. Friedmann had all imagined an initial inferno. :shrug:

 

 

In fact, the BBT was stricken with many problems. Inflation, which predicted a flat universe, solved some of these problems, but inflation itself remains on the fringes of science. Furthermore, recent supernova data indicates the expansion of the universe is accelerating (again, unlike the original Friedmann models), these problems cannot be reconciled without a large contribution to the energy density of the universe, aside from baryonic matter, namely a negative pressure (dark energy). This can be viewed as a weakness inherent in the theory.

 

Current theory predicts that the 'dark ages' began about 400,000 years after the big bang, as matter in an expanding universe cooled and formed cold hydrogen clouds. Stars and galaxies began to form. Their collective light reheated the hydrogen, ending the dark ages approximately one billion years after the big bang.

 

To confirm or refute this prediction (which is fundament to the standard model) telescopes such as The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are required. We'll have to wait until 2013, or shortly thereafter, for the results.

 

JWST has four main science themes: The End of the Dark Ages: First Light and Reionization' date=' The Assembly of Galaxies, The Birth of Stars and Protoplanetary Systems, and Planetary Systems and the Origins of Life.[/quote']

 

See too: JWST Science Questions

 

EDIT: And, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about JWST

 

 

Science changes constantly.

 

I totally agree. Science changes constantly. So too the standard model (even when it should be discarded). As stated above, the price for saving the big bang model was the infusion of DE and CDM.

 

 

I see your point and raise you one...;)

 

I'll call you on that and raise the stakes. There's no maximum raise; you can raise as much as you'd like. If you wish to call a bet but don't have the chips to cover it, that's fine :).

 

Future observations (as those by JWST mentioned above) will make strong demands on theoretical predictions, and will certainly tightly constrain differing models.

 

All of my chips will be placed on this bet (see 2 below). And indeed all of the big bang chips too. Results should show either: (1. the BBT prediction) all stars and galaxies directly post-dark ages are young metal-poor, in the process of formation. Or, (2) there are stars at these distances (during this same epoch) that are old, metal-rich, and galaxies are mature, well-formed (e.g, large spiral galaxies) with high metallicity.

 

 

 

...2) All of the arguments regarding oldness/flatness, horizon, 1a supernovae, abundance of primordial elements, etc have all been well explained by BBT and until and unless some new compelling evidence to the contrary is observed BBT, and the Standard Model, is safe.

 

Even the laws of physics themselves are subject to modification, to confirmation (to some extent) or refutation. So nothing really makes the current standard model "safe."

 

Recall, Enorbet2, that it was inflation (Steinhardt and Guth, circa 1979), with its whimsical false vacuum, that appeased the flatness problem (along with most of the other problems) previously inherent in the BBT. This problem, and others, could not without inflation could be resolved by the BBT itself. The SNe Ia data was a fine natural demonstration that highlighted the vulnerability of the pre-1998 standard model. The pre-1998 standard model was not "safe" before the SN survey, nor is it safe now.

 

The primary weakness of Lambda-CDM (the current standard model), as touched upon above, is its use of the dark energy parameter to 'fill in the blanks.' The concordance model would have been on firmer ground (i.e., it would have been more secure, safer) had this ethereal parameter not become such an essential feature, or ingredient, of the cosmos (2/3 of the mass-enery density).

 

The secondary weakness of L-CDM is of course the nonbaryonic dark matter component (1/3 of the mass-enery density: SOURCE: Dark Energy and the New Cosmology, Michael S. Turner).

 

 

In order to secure a standard model in cosmology (to be "safe"), many (if not all) of the following often-related quandaries should be satisfactorily addressed:

 

1. A unified theory must be devised that either bridge the gap between QM and GR, or elucidates why the unification of these two theories are irreconcilable.

 

2. Unification should be achieved between gravity with the other forces of nature (or it should be illuminated why this is unachievable).

 

3. Lambda (the cosmological constant): an all-inclusive, logically consistent and self-sufficient definition and interpretation of this hitherto unrecognized state (or property, or entity, or force). It's value should follow.

 

4. The interpretation of cosmological redshift z should be unambiguous.

 

5. A justification for the observed abundance of elements should be unambiguous.

 

6. The origin of the cosmic microwave background should be unambiguously determined.

 

7. The age of objects [located both locally and] at the limits of observational capabilities should be unambiguous.

 

8. When predictions are made empirical evidence should support the claims (cosmology needs to be held to the same standards as other fields of science).

There's a long way to go baby...

 

 

Conclusions:

 

(1) Standard models are never "safe" (at least not any more than Euclidean geometry was safe against the onslaught of non-Euclidean geometry, or Newtonian gravitation against the general postulate of relativity).

 

(2) The big bang theory is not a direct result of observations that confirm it. It is a model that continually changes according to observations.

 

(3) Experimental and observational tests need to be continually devised whereby the empirical evidence will either support or refute the model’s predictions. When those prediction fail (i.e., when predictions are in disagreement with observations) the standard model should either be modified or discarded. In other words, substantiation or contradiction should in principle be determinable through successful (or unsuccessful) quantitative predictions compared with observations. The question then arises, when should a model be modified rather be discarded? I would tend to answer that if the modification involved the massive adjunction of entirely speculative entities (vis dark energy and CDM) then we may be better off discarding the model. Indeed, the SNe Ia data signaled a need for a wholesale revision and a major restructuring of a substantial portion of the standard model.

 

Yes, it is my contention that DE and CDM are but an example of modern cosmological gobbledygook introduced in the face of contradictory evidence, an example of how the standard model is changed rather than discarded when detrimental observations emerge.

 

The greatest blunder became the greatest revelation.

 

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

True, and this is exactly what happened after 1998, in light of the SNe Ia data, which showed that neither of the three Friedmann models (the pre-1998 standard model) could be validated, i.e., the predictions made by the three possible scenarios became obsolete. Thus the standard big bang theory was replaced by the concordance model, lambda CDM (LCDM).

 

:shrug: The LCDM model is both a big bang model and a Friedmann universe. It uses the Friedmann metric.

 

Correction: The big bang was an idea first. Observations appeared to support it afterwards (not the other way around). I. Kant, E. A. Poe, I. Newton, A. Friedmann had all imagined an initial inferno.

 

Yup. Big bang was a theory first. It made predictions. Then there were observations which appeared to support it. Yup, yup, yup.

 

 

Furthermore, recent supernova data indicates the expansion of the universe is accelerating (again, unlike the original Friedmann models), these problems cannot be reconciled without a large contribution to the energy density of the universe, aside from baryonic matter, namely a negative pressure (dark energy). This can be viewed as a weakness inherent in the theory.

 

The concordance model *is* an original Friedmann model. The only difference between the model then and the model now is the value of the parameters chosen for the model—in particular, a non-zero cosmological constant.

 

The value of the cosmological constant should not be declared by conviction. It should be determined (as for example SNe 1a data). Einstein agrees:

The postulate of general relativity requires the introduction of the [cosmological constant] into the field equations. It will be our factual knowledge of the composition of the starry heavens, of the apparent motions of the stars, and of the state of spectral lines as a function of conditions far from us that will allow us empirically to answer the question whether the [cosmological constant] equals zero or not. Conviction is a good mainspring, but a bad judge!

 

-

source

 

Sounds reasonable, yeah? :)

 

~modest

[enorbet2]

When one wishes to disprove a mechanical assumption the course is very clear. Although there is some doubt now that Galileo actually dropped two different size (and weigh) balls over the side of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, instead he used inclined planes, but still the methodology is the same - set up repeateable experiments that attack the weakest point of the assumption, in this case and since there was not yet an understanding of why things fall at all,.the weakest point is simply whether or not heavier things fall faster than less heavy things.

 

It would have been foolhardy to attack it by trying to prove that things small enough fall up or worse, that things don't fall at all and that it is just an illusion created by the phenomona that we fall up when we release heavy objects. Things get more complex when we must attack ideas, particularly if they are, or seem, abstract, but the methodology is still the same, attack it where it is weakest. Furthermore, with ideas and their proponents, it is best to attack it where the proponents agree the idea is weakest. As the old saw says "A mind convinced against it's will, remains unconvinced still" . So again given the nature of people as well as problems, attack it where the proponents agree it is weakest, that is as long as your goal is to actually be successful in changing minds and not some other agenda.

 

The proponents of BBT strongly assert, based on evidence and resolved predicitions, that oldness/flatness, horizon, 1a supernovas, are essentially dead horses that further beating cannot alter the fact that they are dead, in this case dead issues. Dark matter as a concept while not as solid as the above issues, has now been around long enough to have been indirectly observed in several different and independently observed phenomena of which lensing is now the least of the evidence, so large is the catalogue of consistant observation. Dark Energy, although silghtly newer and this having less time to amass such a catalogue of support, but let is not forget that Einstein's general relativity led him to a "negative pressure" that so disturbed him he created the fudge factor that he later determined was the worst mistake of his life, that he hadn't trusted his own mathematics. So in that respect Dark Energy has been around longer than we usually give credit. It dosn't hurt that the existing "hole" happened to nearly exactly match the "size" of the calculations required by observed data. Quantum Gravity and Quantum Loop Gravity while initially interesting have apparently stalled, and Dark Energy still prevails.

 

Both Dark Energy and Dark Matter are consistant with WMAP and COBE data and in April of this year may get a boost from the Planck Surveyor. The implications of Dark Matter and Energy are disturbing not satisfying and I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of scientists wish it were not so and in the face of that denial *still* were forced to recognize how much they explain and how coherent a picture they complete.

 

I therefore repeat, if you wish to change minds and have any success at chipping away at as powerful an edifice as is the Standard Model, you must focus on what is widely agreed to be the weakest points - baryogenesis and inflation (recall that several models of inflation have already been ruled out) These are the areas that are most speculartive and likely will take longer to devise any useful experiments that have any hope of being definitive.

 

One of the ways such experiments are devised is by creating doubt in the minds of well-funded science groups. This cannot be done if you persist on attacking issues they contend are "all over but the shouting" like the so-called horizon problem and others mentioned above. They are however considerably more open to alternate takes on the remaining two and probably especially inflation, since it is less likely that an individual with limited resources can gather important data on baryogenesis, wheras Einstein type "thought experiments" still work on inflation, given sufficient skill in mathematics.

 

Fortunately for us all, assuming the global economic problems are not allowed to be exascerbated by bad politics, support for cutting edge science is better than it has been in some time (espcially now that the fundamentalist driven drought in the US is finally at end) and many longterm experiments are within a fairly short rime to completion and real results. Let us all hope Large Hadron recovers well and is free from gremlins for a good five years at the least and that the nextgen telescopes proceed on shedule. Then we will have new and exciting data suitable for lively discussion. After all, WMAP is fast approaching the relatively old age (in science these days) of 10 years old.

 

I'll close with a quote from the WMAP wiki, I think important as a community distillation, that says:

 

"The WMAP's measurements are more accurate than previous measurements; per the Lambda-CDM model of the universe, the data indicate the age of the universe is 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years old, with a Hubble constant of 70.1 ± 1.3 km·s-1·Mpc-1, and is composed of 4.6% ordinary baryonic matter; 23% unknown dark matter that neither emits nor absorbs light; 72% dark energy that accelerates expansion; and less than 1% neutrinos — all consistent with a flat geometry, and the ratio of energy density to the critical density Ω = 1.02 ± 0.02. These results support the Lambda-CDM model and the cosmologic scenarios of cosmic inflation, and evidence of cosmic neutrino background radiation."

 

Maguejo says he sees structure in it. Smolin says he sees problems in it's interpretation. Here's hoping Planck Surveyor refines and/or eliminates such issues this year.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

enorbet said

 

I'll close with a quote from the WMAP wiki, I think important as a community distillation, that says:

 

"The WMAP's measurements are more accurate than previous measurements; per the Lambda-CDM model of the universe, the data indicate the age of the universe is 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years old, with a Hubble constant of 70.1 ± 1.3 km·s-1·Mpc-1, and is composed of 4.6% ordinary baryonic matter; 23% unknown dark matter that neither emits nor absorbs light; 72% dark energy that accelerates expansion; and less than 1% neutrinos — all consistent with a flat geometry, and the ratio of energy density to the critical density Ω = 1.02 ± 0.02. These results support the Lambda-CDM model and the cosmologic scenarios of cosmic inflation, and evidence of cosmic neutrino background radiation."

How does it show that the universe is 13.73 Gyrs?

[freeztar]

Correction: The big bang was an idea first. Observations appeared to support it afterwards (not the other way around). I. Kant, E. A. Poe, I. Newton, A. Friedmann had all imagined an initial inferno. :)

 

You are correct. I should have said (which is what I meant) that *modern* BBT (Lambda-CDM) is a direct result of observations that have honed the original BBT.

 

inflation itself remains on the fringes of science.

 

How so?

 

Furthermore, recent supernova data indicates the expansion of the universe is accelerating (again, unlike the original Friedmann models), these problems cannot be reconciled without a large contribution to the energy density of the universe, aside from baryonic matter, namely a negative pressure (dark energy). This can be viewed as a weakness inherent in the theory.

enorbet2 did a great job of explaining why this is not a "weakness" in his post above.

 

To confirm or refute this prediction (which is fundament to the standard model) telescopes such as The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are required. We'll have to wait until 2013, or shortly thereafter, for the results.

 

If you recall, we've discussed this before on a news release thread of the JWST. :(

I predict that the results from the JWST will strengthen the BBT, either by providing direct support or recommendations for revision, rather than abolish it.